In the legal case of; with regard to:the decision of the Court of Appeal in re Midland Railway Co’s Agreement...
I agree with Jonathan Parker J's judgment in re Barings at page 493 that s.3 of the 1972 Act does not render relevant that which is irrelevant.
As Brightman J's decision in re H.R. Paul & Son Ltd, 118 SJ 166 shows, the quorum provisions cannot be regarded as conferring upon the second respondent some form of veto as being his entitlement.
The same approach was adopted by the House of Lords in re Ismail [1999] 1 AC 320 where Lord Steyn said that ‘accused’ in section 1 of the 1989 Act is not a term of art.